September 21, 2014, 08:37:23 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
PowerShot / Re: Official: Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 15, 2014, 04:19:06 PM »
I wish they'd use a DPAF sensor in this little cameras. The little cameras frequently have focusing issues, especially for video.
Video performance will be the deciding factor for me on this one. The Sony RX100 mkIII apparently nails video

If it's a sony sensor, then they'd need to license DPAF from Canon :(

I would expect the AF from Canon to be as good as the Sony.

2
WEX price £1599, I was expecting it to be £1799 in line with the dollar price  :o now where's me piggy bank

Wow, I was going to say just the opposite. Dollar price is roughly £1125-£1150. So you are clearly happier than I paying almost 40% more than our US friends. Yikes...

3
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan - out of curiosity, what's the maths behind subject size, lens, distance, size on sensor please? I've always wanted to be able to calculate this.

Is it focal length/(distance/subject size) = size on sensor?

Thanks in advance.

4
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:25:38 AM »
I hope that they do the same in the UK!

I'd assumed this was from Japan, although local market changes are possible. Like you, hope it is EU wide :)

5
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:21:52 AM »
Nice!  Glad I held off on ordering the TS-E 17mm, list will be $100 less than the rebate price, street price likely even better. 

$500 drop on the 24-70mm f/4L IS.  More sensible price now, ouch for those that bought it at higher prices.
You ready for that 300mm? If my 400mm wasn't that good,  I can see 300 & 600mm combo  ;)

That's what I have  ;D. Agonized for ages over the 600mm vs 200-400mm, but I'm hoping the 100-400mk II will fill that "gap"....

6
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:19:55 AM »
Neuro, interested to hear why you're looking at the TS-E 17mm.  I've been researching the differences between the two lenses lately and in some other threads it sounded like you were pretty happy with the TS-E 24mm.

I'm very happy with my TS-E 24mm...except when I need a wider focal length.  I would be using them both, depending on the focal length needed.

Other than focal length, the 24 is slightly sharper (the 17 is among the very sharpest ultrawide lenses, though).  The 24 can tilt a little more than the 17.  One of the biggest differences is the 24 can take front filters and the 17 cannot.  Since my main TS use is architecture, I rely on a 10-stop ND to 'blur out' people from the scene, so that's one factor that kept me from getting the 17.  Now, there's the Wonderpana system as a 10-stop solution for the 17...not cheap, but I need that option.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the TS-E lenses take the Canon extenders, the 1.4xIII behind the 17 gets you to 24mm with very good IQ.

CS5 / CS6 extended versions have the ability to stack shots and "remove" differences between frames ie people. Also useful for reducing noise. Martin Evening did an article on it ages ago. Take 5-6 shots and then stack the, Believe CC has this functionality as standard. Might be a cheaper option...

7
very nice, thanks for sharing....

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 09:30:51 PM »
Hi all
I m mainly wildlife photographer.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

I have one different opinion about sport crop sensor cameras.
It is indeed very strange a sports FF camera to have 16 and 18 mp but crop sensors to have 20/24mp.
Sounds quite misunderstanding...

For most wildlife and sport users shooting sport and widlife with 20/24mp sensor crop camera means simply a lot of post processing. Nothing more...yeah it is great for landscapes and so one. But for natural light sport fast moving or wildlife needs this is totally no sense. We all need not more than 16mp here with bigger buffer and better ISO/DR performance.  Cause when we shoot at 1600-3200 iso it is huge post to get good 10-12 final image.  But this is impossible nowadays.

So... most important is frame rate and AF. So 7d2 will give us both. Bigger buffer ! I`m sure with dial 6 processors it will be done! Better body than 70d and similar to 5d3 done! So there is one thing missing. The sensor. Nobody wants to create a brand new sensor for specific users base on crop sensor camera. They have to be cheap after all... So current 20mp in 70d witch i have now (My 7d dead and i buy 70d) is enough. May be better 1600-3200 iso is required! Because with 5.6 lens like mine 400 5.6 it is very hard to make good IQ image winter time. We shoot constantly at 800-1600 iso at the edge of the shutter speeds required. So it make sense to say...ok if you want more go for 5d3 and 500/4IS :)))

So sensor is the main market level separation here. Sony sensors is not better buy much after 800-1600 iso. They are better at 100-800 iso in DR case. After 800-1600 is equal to the canon 20mp sensor. So our market do not offer better sensors for high iso shooting with crop sensors. Just we may want at least little better performance at 1600-3200 range. May be usable 3200 shots and good 1600 iso. I have a lot of great images at 1600 and 2000 iso with my 7d and my 70d. When the image is right and post is good 1600 iso is not big problem. 3200 iso depends from the scene and light source.

So think twice before you want something... :)))

Sorry for the bad english !

Nice photos, and welcome to the forum. Can I ask where you shoot your nature?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:07:20 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

I'm sure the Orca is fake ! Seriously these were just the first ones I came to, I'm not saying they are perfect by a long way.

But the point is, look at the exposure of the first one ! The data has been taken from the background (master) layer.

Your eyes are better trained than mine. I'm looking on an iPad mini, I can see boosted colours in the background, a tone curve, but I'm not sure I can see anything else.  And I mean the first part in a non-sarcastic, offensive manner- I don't see anything really "out"...

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 08:01:50 AM »
....
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

I've been harping on about this for ages except that I use DxO as the measuring stick and you're using photos posted by people online. In both cases they amount to the same thing: Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it? Because you and neuro have been long arguing that DxO's measurements are bad and so any discrepancy between the Nikon and Canon cameras is also flawed. But now you've stumbled across more pictures from real life photographers that show that whilst DxO numbers may leave something to desire, the difference they describe between the two brands is accurate.

You've made your bed in arguing that I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough. Use HDR, use better technique, real world doesn't need that many stops because of screen/print issues. Blah blah blah. On and on the two of you have argued about how Nikon's advantage isn't real.

And now you've woken up and discovered that the song you sang has put all of those around you to sleep and they don't want to wake up. Why should anyone feel sorry for you about facing denial from others posting here?

Maybe you'd like to print those words out on paper - or write them down - and post a video of you eating that paper :-D

I'm not sure everyone is denying it. I think it needs to be put in perspective that it is not necessarily a major issue, it does not mean Canon is a dinosaur ready for extinction, and that those people who use Canon are not 2nd class citizens.

I do not dispute that Nikon bodies have more DR and edit latitude. I completely understand Jon's frustration and agree with those that state post processing is more effort inside when you should be outside. I, like many others have experienced the read noise issue, and as I said above you try to work around it. But, I personally take a lot of landscapes in the so called blue hour or twilight. I prefer the look. I also have sunset / sunrise shots but not every shot I take I want to show the complete tonal range. Sometimes I want to direct the viewer to a specific part. DR is a tool that I use in my shots. I often darken areas in a shot with less DR than a Canon sensor can handle exactly because I don't want the full range.

As I said, we need to keep it in perspective.... No dispute Nikon / Sony has the lead. No issue that there are people here who have either both, or have jumped completely to Nikon (curious as to why they are still here, but hey it's free  ;) ). People are free to chose, free to move, free to discuss. If we could leave the hyperbole's behind no matter which camp you are in :D

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:37:49 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

the first 2 look like sharp line ND grads

Agree the 2nd one, in fact the Orca looks fake... Probably cause with a long exposure unless they weren't moving it would be blurred.

On the first one, had you used a grad, then they would have had to clean up the rocks, I could not see stepped tonal change in them...

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:20:07 AM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious.

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.

First, I totally agree...I think at some point Sony will probably buy Nikon. There is obviously something wrong with Nikon's strategy. It isn't the technology...so it's something else. I myself see them as being schizophrenic, they make odd business decisions and seem to waste money on pointless things that are unlikely to recoup all the R&D costs, let alone make them money.

There are some out there who think that in a few years time, the only three players left in the ILC market will be Canon, Nikon and Sony, and possibly just Canon and Sony. The rest will either merge, fold, or enter the smartphone camera market in one way or another (kind of like Sony's QX line.) I don't know, I think more companies will ally with Sony in one way or another, use their sensors. Sony may scoop a couple of them up. In the end, there may well indeed end up being only three major players in the ILC market.

Just to be clear, I have no intention of "switching" brands. If I do anything, it will be adding another brand to my kit. There are still problems with that. I despise the fact that Sony chose a lossy "raw" format...it doesn't even qualify to be called RAW since it's lossy. I'd have an A7r already if not for that. I also have never lied about my opinion of Nikon ergonomics. So, it's not an ideal situation. However...for my landscape photography...which, how often have you seen me share landscapes? Rarely. :P I have never cared for the editing latitude of my Canon files at low ISO. Even with good NR, you still have to pick some balance between shadow detail and shadow noise. I'm quite good with Topaz DeNoise 5, it is a very effective program. But even that still eats detail for breakfast if you really push the NR far enough that Canon shadows look like Exmor shadows.

My high ISO photography is great, I'm happy with it. I have no doubt I still have years of learning left for birds and wildlife, my work doesn't even compare to the pros. However, my low ISO photography? I've never been satisfied with it. I have some decent shots, but, eh. I figured Canon would have had a high DR part out by now, so I didn't let it bother me. But now it seems Canon is content with what they have...for whatever reasons....and I'm not. I don't like fighting with noise in the shadows. I don't like having to obliterate detail to clean my landscape shadows up. I just don't like it...never have. I was patient, I waited. I'm tired of waiting. I wait so often, wait on people, companies, technology.

I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

http://500px.com/photo/74066923/if-2-by-zsolt-kiss

The sun is fully realized there...and the foreground detail is, quite detailed. I think that's an amazing shot. I've tried shooting into the sun before with my Canon cameras. I'm fully and well versed in ETTR, I know exactly how to use it. I've used GND filters. I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800. That's a scene with tons of DR....from deep shadows behind the rock and mountain, to the sun itself (which isn't blown in any way that I can see.) As far as I can tell, that was an f/22, 1s ISO 100 shot. I would LOVE to be able to do that!

As much as we, all being Canon fans, want to defend the company...they are behind. And they are falling farther and farther behind. I'm not joking when I say that Canon sensor technology is archaic. It really, sadly, is. If the 7D II gets a minimal evolutionary update to the 70D sensor...then, just as sad, that fact remains true. That disappoints me.

JRista, it's a nice picture - irrespective of the body. I think if I was there, then I probably would have done an HDR, but when I get back home I will check and see if I have anything similar. I suspect if I do, then there will be less detail in the shadows, so I do appreciate where you are coming from.

I guess I have got used to filters and HDR, and perhaps become resigned to that fact. Anything which reduces the post processing effort is definitely worth it. I personally will wait till the 5d IV and 1dx mk ii are announced, as I think. Canon know they are not addressing landscape photographers completely. I think their focus was rightly on the bigger markets - wedding with the mk iii, and sports/nature with the 1dx and now the 7d mk ii. If in 2015 there's not some improvements then I may look again at an alternative body - hopefully one which I can retain my canon glass on... If I don't travel abroad then I tend to take nature and landscape kit (oops, 2 bags). Abroad just one bag, so mixing canon and another brand would limit my choices)....

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:10:45 AM »
If I was in the market, I wouldn't buy into this watered down sales-speak.
It sounds like you're selling Tupperware.

Yeah. I mean...long lenses?  Who needs 'em?  200mm is plenty, just get closer.  Good flashes and high Xsync speeds?  Useless.  Servo tracking for moving subjects?  Phth – real men use manual focus, and the a6000 has peaking so that's even better!

You don't have to convince me.  I stay with Canon because I believe the lens system is superior in quality and variety (as well as out-of-camera color).

However, I'm not sure that talking about an "ecosystem" is going to lure new shooters over. It sounds more like the camera isn't good enough to stand alone, so priority is placed on peripheral aspects.

I think ecosystem is important for people knowing they have a system which will be around in years to come and will grow with them.

I also think (uk only) that the average sales assistant would not be able to tell you any differences between sensors in the cameras they sell. I don't read uk magazines any more, so would be interested to know how many of them highlight the problem with read noise at low ISO.

It is funny, I remember with both the 5D and the 1ds trying to pull the exposure up and seeing the noise and concluding oops, sensor limitation. Only the internet and places like dpreview forums and then here, educated me better. Fortunately for Canon, their largest % of buyers do not research on the internet, or are not affected....

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:48:12 PM »
Hmm...after reading 28 pages of this, I'm pretty sure that "do you really need it?" is not an adequate justification for not improving out-of-camera IQ.

How about staying financially secure enough to be around for the next 10 years? I believe the perspective is from Canon... How much will people not buy their kit and bring revenue if they don't change it this time....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17